Brian,

I mostly agree with your grading. I think I'd give them an overall grade of B+ and I certainly think special teams deserve much better than C-. Forbath should be give a little slack considering it was his first game and I still think his second FG attempt was good. Kick and punt coverage were both solid. Terrence Austin fielded all the punts cleanly and seemed to be only one tackle away on a couple of occasions from breaking a long one. He looked confident and fast on his returns and I think he'll break a couple this season. Matt Slater was even better on kick returns and I still am not sure if he stepped out of bounds on the 2nd half kick-off. Stupid FSN never showed a replay and if he was out it was by a shoelace..........otherwise he was gone for a TD.

I know it was Stanford but who cares, the Bruins looked like what everyone expected. The one question I had at the beginning of the season was the O-line and they looked great. Props, to the coaching staff for knowing how to open the offense. Props, to Karl for adding a needed dose of octane at the half.

A huge difference this season compared to the last was the favorable commentary by the ESPN analysts, including Mark May. You’re doing something right if the Game-Day guys start talking positive about your team.

I’d like to see more of Ramirez running the ball. For a guy that just switch from defense to running back, he looked good.

On another note, California’s defense did not look that good. They can be out scored.

I think the receivers should get a plus to go with their A due to the downfield blocking we saw on Saturday. Brandon Breazell in particular was spectacular in this regard.

I disagree primarily with the special teams ranking, Brian, think you focused on the FGs and over-valued them as the rest of the special team play was outstanding. Overlooked is the coaches' xlnt scheming to plan the KOs to pin Stanford into the sideline on returns. Rotstein and the cover team performed that perfectly all day (til Rotstein kicked the last one all the way into the endzone). Perez' punting was excellent as well - a 45 yard average and very little in the way of returns is terrific for a college team. All in all, the VERY good outweighed the bad IMO.

I'd have given Ben a B+ (okay, A- - not much difference in that) - he did what he had to do but looked tentative at times, needs to be more decisive, hit those options a bit more quickly, and on several throws I thought he was dinking it a bit too softly when just a bit more "get it there" and a little less "touch" might have helped create completions. He will improve - if you're grading on expectations, an A is certainly warranted - he did what we needed him to be able to do in the first game against an inferior opponent; but if you're grading him as a top level college QB, to me it's a B+ ... and I wonder if he wouldn't agree with that assessment.

As to the D, the combo of lack of pressure at times from the DL - especially the interior - and some bad missed assignments - four or so - combined with some odd angles of pursuit and a couple real bone-head plays (e.g. Verner going for the home-run, knock-the-pass-down move on third and long with the ball thrown well short of the needed yardage, allowing a first down when all he needed to do was stop the guy after the catch)makes me grade harder that you did at least for the DBackfield - while Trey Brown WAS terrific and Verner made some plays along with his mistakes, I think their performance was no better than a C - at most. Bradford's a terrific receiver and I recall several plays on which he was open but Ostrander missed him. Play like that against a better quarterback and Ucla is going to get burned a lot worse.